Wow. You must have heard a WHOLE LOT of rap and techno music.
I doubt it.
You said you might…but you keep hedging. Do it. Prove you’re as good as a monkey.
This thread reminds me of one of those “rap isn’t music” threads.
No, I’m having way too much fun to stop now! 
Something tells me the whole joke was lost on the forthright turtlekin.
CandidGamera, elaborate on your experience with rap music. Have you listened to lots of Public Enemy? The Roots? Hell, OutKast?
That’s what I thought.
Carve this into your forehead:
To say that you don’t care for some form of art, or that it doesn’t speak to you is fine. To approach a group of people who do enjoy that form of art and suggest that they are chumps because they are moved by an artform that you claim is invalid, simply because it does not conform to your preconceived notions of what art should be, is supremely arrogant, condescending and rude. Your personal conceptions of what art is supposed to be like and express are just that; your opinions. To suggest that they are the standard to which the world should conform is just ludicrous, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn’t need to be told that.
To use another analogy, based on your profession:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
cout<<"Hello World!"<<endl;
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
Why, that is just a bunch of random text! I could write a computer program to spit that out! (Oh, the irony.)
What is this #include bullshit?
Well, it’s a preprocessor directive that tells the compiler to include the iostream.h header file, defining some of the functions in the program.
Oh, that’s just meaningless pseudointellectual jargon you made up to justify your creation of some meaningless text strings!
Well, it goes to the compiler, which turns it into a program.
You shouldn’t need a compiler to tell you what your work means! I should be able to just look at it and have it speak to me!
Well, if you ran the compiler, it would speak to you.
But I shouldn’t have to compile it! If it doesn’t speak to me as it is, without some study or some miraculous “compiler” intervention, it’s worthless.
The fact that you can’t see then endproduct, so to speak, of abstract art doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. The art is like code, what you bring to it; your experience and knowledge and appreciation for the intent; are what turn it into something meaningful for you.
You see random text, where others, with the compiler, see “Hello World!”
It’s true I haven’t said anything new in a while - in my defense, it’s because I’ve been responding to the same questions over and over again. And I’m not here to be convinced to re-examine abstract art.
Sigh. Who teaches the Future Art Critics of America? The current Art Critics of America.
Again, I refer you back to my exact statement. Anyone buying something as ‘a work of genius’. As if it’s somehow intrinsically better than the rest. I don’t buy comics based on critics. I buy them based on plot summaries, cover blurbs, and the like - but never based on anyone’s “thumbs up”.
Ah, you’re having a comprehension problem. I never said you’re deluded for liking it. My comments about the deluded were directed against those people who pay $500,000 for a picture of a blue circle entitled ‘The Beach’, because the art community regards it as a work of genius, a revelation.
Hope that clears things up. Though I do seem to have repeated this point about a dozen times now…
Yup. Countless hours of sitting in front of the TV with it tuned to MTV while I worked on something else, and the fact of listening to a Top-40 style radio station on morning drives (Where they play about 50% rap and hip-hop) will do that. My techno experience isn’t quite as extensive - I have several friends who enjoy it, and play it constantly, so I have a lot of exposure, but I can’t identify the individual ‘artists’ or ‘titles’.
I’m glad you acknowledge my suffering.
And that’s not what I said, so I guess we’re okay then.
I’m sorry, I don’t work on your timeline.
See? I’ve already got the artist attitude down. 
But by doing so you are precluding any possibility that they might, y’know, actually value the painting that much. This is where it gets condescending; you refuse to acknowledge that people might appreciate something you don’t, for reasons unrelated to some elitist conspiracy of art critics. How do you know why anyone buys a piece of art?
Regarding the radio thing, one can use exactly the same justification for hating all of pop, rock, country, etc., and be just as wrong. The radio, by and large, plays currently-popular pap. If all I’d heard was Ja Rule and 50 Cent, then sure; I’d hate rap music too.
Please re-read the part you quoted from my post. Pay particular attention to the clause beginning ‘because’. If you’re not buying the painting “because” of the reasons given, then the statement does not apply to you.
I should just start answering everyone by quoting my earlier posts where I’ve already given them the answer.
You haven’t really answered many of my points.
I can’t imagine why you believe having eyes is equal to being able to see, particularly to see in new ways (which is the point of a whole lot of art). Having a mind isn’t enough to know. Having feet doesn’t enable one to dance.
When people first saw Cezanne’s paintings, they didn’t know what to make of them and couldn’t figure out what was being painted. Because no one had ever handled paint and light and form in quite that way before. Now we can see his subject matter, because we know better. Well, those of us who know something about art can.
You should stop being ignorant and start becoming educated. Being bombastic and argumentative isn’t going to change your lack of knowledge. You don’t know anywhere near what you think you do. You don’t know shit about looking at art.
And this is why you and I aren’t going to approach any kind of detente on this issue - your mindset is fundamentally different from my own, and talking to you is not productive. It’s like someone asking “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Your questions assume things that are not factually true. The difference is that in your case, you have a deeply held belief that art education is necessary to form an opinion on art - I believe that’s patently false, and thus refuse to entertain any points put forth on that presumption.
Right, but we’re not debating about whether there exist stupid people or not; we’re talking about the value of specific art forms. People are just as capable of buying comics for dumb reasons as they are abstract art, and this has nothing to do with the art in question. If you’re being as specific as you claim, then it’s difficult to see what your point has to do with abstract art at all.
Ah, okay, I think I get what you mean. Yes, I believe that this problem occurs in all art forms, to an extent - the reason I bear extra malice to the abstract-artform is because of paintings like that Red Square and that Mondrian, or examples of modern art where the artist has just flung feces at a canvas. Anybody can do it, so the gap between ‘genius’ and ‘mundane’ is entirely arbitrary.
Surely you’ve heard the one about opinions being like assholes?
The point is that you’re ignorant. I’m not saying a vast education is necessary in order to overcome ignorance. But you don’t understand the first thing about seeing, yet you think you do. It would be like me spouting off about golf, a topic about which I know nothing. I’ve held a club, I’ve even been to a golf course, I’ve seen it on TV and know who Tiger Woods is - yet I know nothing about the sport and wouldn’t presume to judge it. That’s what you’re doing. It’s just ignorant.
Perhaps one of your kids or grandkids will receive a better education than you did, and will develop an interest in art. You might then be able to learn something from them if you’re willing to listen.
You can certainly say so. I disagree, obviously. Some types of opinions benefit from information - aesthetic opinions do not, in my view. Ignorance suggests there’s something useful to learn that I haven’t - and I assert that there is not. I’ve never had an aesthetic opinion change as a result of “education” (or 'indoctrination as the case seems to be) - after reading about and watching thousands of movies - I don’t find that I like ones I used to dislike, or dislike ones I used to like.
Perhaps one of your grandkids will be a proctologist, and be able to pull that stick out of your…
[Krusty] Hey-hey! [/Krusty]
Sometimes, in art, silly things can be done by just anyone, but one has to ask – why didn’t anyone think of it before? This is where the time and place of art become important. Sure, anyone can piss on a crucifix, but why hasn’t anyone yet?
Take, for example, Cage’s 3:33. It’s three and a half minutes of silence. Could any idiot have written that? Sure. Then why didn’t they? At the time, it was a bold statement about the music world. It shocked and horrified people. It made then think. It made them feel. It’s easy, in today’s world, to criticize it as being simplistic and lacking in talent. But where were you then? If it was so easy to do, then why haven’t you done it?
For another example, take Mr2001’s computer drawing. Nothing new there. He was just imitating something he’d already seen. The hard work has already been done. The conception was already there.
And CandidGamera, why is it so difficult for you to distinguish between “I don’t care for it” and “It took no talent”? You realize that you’re coming off as an ignorant troglodyte, don’t you? You think you’re “Telling like it is”, but we can all see through it. You’re an idiot.
So you’ve never learned anything from anyone? You’ve never read a critic’s take on a movie and realized you missed something?
Never met an omnipotent before. Does the Vatican know about you?
I can’t imagine a type of opinion that wouldn’t benefit from education. Not that there isn’t miseducation as well, I’m not saying it’s necessarily easy, clear, fast, whatever. Nor do all educated people agree on all art - there’s plenty of stuff, old and new, that I dislike, disregard, disrespect. It’s not black and white (except for Franz Kline ha-ha, inside joke).
Why should aesthetics in particular be exempt from education? Surely you wouldn’t make the same know-nothing argument about science, history, or math. Aesthetics isn’t the same? How do you know? Somehow your ignorance gives you an inside edge that the rest of us are missing?
That is really bizarre. I wouldn’t have bothered writing you at all except that you mentioned support for Kerry earlier in this thread, so I figured there was hope.
Strawman. I have never learned anything that would change my aesthetic opinion of a work already evaluated.
The term you’re groping for is omniscient, and I don’t claim to be.
Let’s take a more simple example, perhaps I can help you to understand. I don’t like the taste or texture of Potato Salad. Now, while a snobby gourmand can come along and recommend that I try other, similar foods to get an idea of ‘what the chef was trying to accomplish’ - it doesn’t change the fact that I don’t like potato salad. Nor does the fact that I haven’t tried those additional foods invalidate or lessen the value of my aesthetic judgment. Certainly it is possible to ‘acquire tastes’ - but that’s not education, that’s repetition inducing acceptance - sort of like Bush’s tactics against Kerry.